In PAR approaches and now ILS where azimuth and glidepath are designed to be clear of all obstacles, I don't see a problem with QFE. There is potentially room for error using QNH in that situation by pilots getting their elevation sums wrong.
In the case of a sloping runway I would also think that using touchdown QFE fairly useful
So there's no right or wrong to this, it's simply a matter of which country you did your pilot training.
I worked for Panam ops from 1979 to 1981 and the only routes that could be remotely considered Eastern bloc were IGS. This was the Internal German Service set up after the war because Lufthansa was only permitted international routes.At the time IGS consisted of 727'sCAPFlyer wrote:
I've heard stories from PanAm pilots who flew into the Eastern Bloc back during the Cold War and the adjustment that using QFE required and the interesting approaches that were common use back then. They said it was amazing more planes didn't skip off mountains and canyon walls because there were more than a few approaches that left less than 200 feet to each side of the airplane as they descended down a valley or canyon to reach an airport. At night or in bad weather, it spooked the pilots.
The only destination that could possibly be described as Eastern Bloc being Berlin and it's associated corridor. There were terrain clearance issues but the bigger problem was accurately navigating the corridor to avoid being shot at by the Soviets.
I hope he doesn't mind me saying this but one of our skippers was called Dave Blood. A brilliant guy but I always wondered what his passengers thought when he made his broadcast
